Financial burden and quality of life among early-onset colorectal cancer survivors: A qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed at ages <50 years old (early-onset CRC) has been increasing in the United States, resulting in a growing number of early-onset CRC survivors who may face significant financial and quality of life (QOL) challenges. OBJECTIVE: Identify themes from a patient advocate discussion about the impact of CRC on financial burden and QOL among early-onset CRC survivors. METHODS: We conducted a semi-structured, stakeholder discussion among 14 early-onset CRC survivors and one caregiver who were members of an advocacy group. The discussion focused on the financial and overall QOL impacts of CRC. The meeting was recorded, transcribed and coded in ATLAS.ti, using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Cancer stage at diagnosis among advocates with CRC ranged from 2 to 4; about half of the attendees had no evidence of disease, and about half were undergoing treatment. Employment (career trajectory, lost wages, health insurance/benefits, performance) emerged as the dominant theme of the financial impacts discussion. Lifestyle impacts of disease and survivorship included both emotional and physical side-effects. Diagnosis experience, missing information about CRC treatment and side-effects, financial stress and strain on relationships were the primary themes for the overall QOL impacts. CONCLUSION: Given the growing incidence of CRC in those under 50, it is particularly important for providers to be aware of these patients' financial, emotional and QOL needs, and to develop care plans that specifically address these areas of concern for early-onset CRC survivors.

Health care improvement and survivorship priorities of colorectal cancer survivors: findings from the PORTAL colorectal cancer cohort survey.

PURPOSE: Few population-level surveys have explored patient-centered priorities for improving colorectal cancer survivors' care. Working with patients, we designed a survey to identify care improvement and survivorship priorities. METHODS: We surveyed a random sample of 4000 patients from a retrospective, population-based cohort of colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed during 2010-2014. The survey included two multiple response questions: "What would you have changed about your cancer diagnosis and treatment experience?" and "What are your biggest health or lifestyle concerns (other than having cancer) since being diagnosed?" Multivariable regression identified characteristics associated with endorsement of health care experience and survivorship concerns. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 50.2% (2000/3986). Fifty-three percent reported at least one unmet need, most commonly for more information about life after treatment (26.7%). Survivors of rectal cancer reported more needs than respondents with colon cancer; persons of color reported more needs than non-Hispanic whites; individuals without high school diplomas reported more needs than individuals with more education. Fear of recurrence was the most common health/lifestyle concern (58.9%). Respondents under age 65 reported nearly all health/lifestyle concerns more often than respondents over age 74. Rectal cancer survivors reported more concerns about activity limitation, changes, and body function and appearance than colon cancer survivors. Persons of color were more likely to report financial concerns than non-Hispanic whites. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest needs for intervention are among survivors of rectal cancer, survivors of minority racial/ethnic background, and survivors of younger age. Survivors with low educational attainment and those with higher stage disease could also benefit.

Cancer survivors' experiences with breakdowns in patient-centered communication.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed cancer survivors' communication experiences that fell short of being patient-centered. Patients' descriptions of communication "breakdowns" were analyzed according to domain (eg, information exchange, fostering relationships, and managing emotions), whether it was a breakdown of commission (what was communicated) or omission (what should have been communicated) and whether it involved a clinician or the health care organization. METHODS: Cancer survivors (from an online panel of patients) completed the Patients Assessment of Communication Experience measure. Ratings less than "excellent" elicited a prompt asking where communication fell short. Communication breakdowns were categorized as one of commission/omission, if it involved a clinician/health care system, and within which communication domain. Thematic analysis explored how communication breakdowns affected respondents' cancer care experiences. RESULTS: Overall communication was rated as less than excellent by 153 respondents, of which 79 identified a specific communication breakdown. Over half (n = 43, 54%) were problems of omission, mostly attributed to interaction with health care organizations (n = 25). Breakdowns of commission (n = 36, 46%) occurred primarily within clinical encounters (n = 32). Most breakdowns were problems of information exchange (49%) or fostering relationships (27%). Three overarching themes emerged-emotional fallout from unmet information needs, inattention to patient perspective, and uncertainty about navigation and team communication. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered communication breakdowns create distress that worsens patients' cancer care experiences. Communication skills training for clinicians should address listening, perspective taking, and assessing/satisfying patients' information and emotional needs. Health care organizations should enhance processes to provide timely, useful information to patients.

Optimizing patient-reported outcome and risk factor reporting from cancer survivors: a randomized trial of four different survey methods among colorectal cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to determine response rates and associated costs of different survey methods among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of 16,212 individuals diagnosed with CRC (2010-2014) from six health plans, and randomly selected 4000 survivors to test survey response rates across four mixed-mode survey administration protocols (in English and Spanish): arm 1, mailed survey with phone follow-up; arm 2, interactive voice response (IVR) followed by mail; arm 3; email linked to web-based survey with mail follow-up; and arm 4, email linked to web-based survey followed by IVR. RESULTS: Our overall response rate was 50.2%. Arm 1 had the highest response rate (59.9%), followed by arm 3 (51.9%), arm 2 (51.2%), and arm 4 (37.9%). Response rates were higher among non-Hispanic whites in all arms than other racial/ethnic groups (p < 0.001), among English (51.5%) than Spanish speakers (36.4%) (p < 0.001), and among higher (53.7%) than lower (41.4%) socioeconomic status (p < 0.001). Survey arms were roughly comparable in cost, with a difference of only 8% of total costs between the most (arm 2) and least (arm 3) expensive arms. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed surveys followed by phone calls achieved the highest response rate; email invitations and online surveys cost less per response. Electronic methods, even among those with email availability, may miss important populations including Hispanics, non-English speakers, and those of lower socioeconomic status. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our results demonstrate effective methods for capturing patient-reported outcomes, inform the relative benefits/disadvantages of the different methods, and identify future research directions.